tv Varney Company FOX Business January 11, 2017 9:00am-12:01pm EST
>> respectful and twitter are an oxymoron, the only thing better is mr. trump talking to the press at 11 a.m. going wild and woolley. maria: happy belatedbirthday to you. my friend, dagen mcdowell. stay with fox business network. here is stuart and "varney & company." stuart: we'll take it, maria. thank you very much indeed. talk about a full plate. you're about to see the trump presidency tested and challenged before it's started. it's going to be a contentious day, oh, yes, and good morning everyone. exxon's recollection tillerson will be grilled on climate change and dealings with russia's vladimir putin. his confirmation on secretary of state is about to begin. minutes from now, there will be hostile questioning from the democrats and you will see it. then, at 11:00, the president-elect holds his first former news conference in six months. watch out, this will be very contentious. unverified and unsubstantiated
claims this morning that the russians have damaging information on mr. trump and that his lawyer met with russian officials and said cash payments to them. the lawyer says totally untrue. trump angrily calls it a political witch hunt and fake news. the russians say they have no compromising material, but it's all over the media. it will come up at the tillerson hearing and it wil be center stage at the news conference. so, here is the state of political play. the left continues its full court press to discredit and undermine the trump presidency. they are in attack mode. you will see how trump responds. "varney & company" is about to begin. ♪ >> exxonmobil chief rex tillerson's confirmation is about to be gavelled to order.
you'll expect questions, hostile questions from democrats on russia and climate change. we have liz peek. judge andrew napolitano, spokesman rick grinell, ashley webster and liz macdonald. we'll quote him on a couple tweets. russia said the unverified report by political opponents is a complete and total fabrication, utter nonsense, very unfair. this is how the hate trump band wagon rolls. a retired u.k. intelligence guy, paid by anti-trump people puts out a salacious and disgusting report about donald trump. unverified and unsubstantiated, but it finds its way into an intel briefing that goes to the president and the president-elect. and it is picked up by the media in the middle of confirmation hearings and right before the press conference. the judge is with me.
liz is with me, and all around the table. judge, first of all, sounds to me like almost a conspiracy to slime the incoming president. >> it does sound that way and how this made its way into an intelligence report and how it was leaked is-- could the intelligence leaders, clapper, rogers, comey, have taken this seriously enough to have presented it to president-elect trump last week and to president obama as well? aren't they skeptical about this kind of stuff? >> rick grinell come in, please. i am saying that this stinks of-- itust stinks that this should surface at this point before the confirmation hearings and the press conference and you say what? >> yeah, totally stinks. look, intelligence is an estimate and we have to remember that, sometimes it's accurate, sometimes it's not. sometimes it's false, sometimes it's given from a human standpoint and sometimes it's leaked documents, but it's a fuller picture. so, you know, look, these types of things are going to happen
and donald trump is going to get used to it and bat them down and the media has got to act mature about this and only push stories that are actually accurate and true to the public. stuart: well said, rick. liz peek, i think investors don't want to hear about this. they want to hear about-- at the press conference, they want to hear about divesting his assets, conflict of interest, tax cuts and deregulation. >> more importantly, they want to hear what he'll do to help this country. they're ready to move on. it was so salacious and unvier phiable hillary clinton's group didn't use it and it didn't come up during the campaign. they had access to it, they paid for it, and i think it calls into question the political integrity of our intelligence leaders and horrifying. liz: look at the timing of this, right at the hearings, but a week after president-elect trump says he wants to restructure the cia
and the director, the office of the director of national intelligence. remember, donald trump wants to restructure the intelligence community, it comes a week after that. ashley: a foreign spy, paid for by trump opponents, they want to talk about interference in democracy in this country from russia, it's a lot closer to home. stuart: this is going to come off the hearing on the left-hand side of the screen. far left is rex tillerson, ex-ceo exxonmobil. and the confirmation hearing whether he will be secretary of state. rick grinell, the reports surfacing this morning, that's not going to have a serious impact on whether or not tillerson is the next secretary of state, is it? >> no, i don't think so. i think he'll be easily confirmed and one reason why, we haven't heard from him. the media have been running crazy with stories about what exxon did or didn't do and how they went around the sanctions. we're now going to hear from the ceo, a guy who is wildly
successful, has managed a global company, and i think people are going to be very impressed with his answers and so, i'm eager to hear what he says about sanctions and how politicians respond to it. politicians think that oil sanctions are the top of the game, the toughest and the best, i want to hear from rex tillerson what he thinks about some of the sanctions. stuart: well, we're going to hear from rex tillerson probably 15, 20 minutes from now. on the left-hand side of the screen you see senators cornyn and cruz, and they'll be introducing mr. tillerson and speaking momentarily and meanwhile, i want to continue this discussion about the hearing when it really gets rolling and the hostile questioning that is going to come from the democrats shortly towards rex tillerson. i don't think it's going to upset him. he's been the ceo of a huge oil company for years. >> i agree with rick grinell that he will be confirmed, but i must suggest that some hostile questioning will come from republicans, from
republicans who are fearful about a sort of amicable rather than adversarial relationship that mr. tillerson may suggest between the united states and russia and between himself and vladimir putin. stuart: that will come up. >> i think it will. stuart: and it will be aggravated by this. >> john mccain is not on the committee, but it's the john mccain, lindsey graham, marco rubio attitude about this personified by republican conservatives who are having to ask him some pointed questions. >> by the way, just to be clear, russia has the sixth largest oil reserves in the world. for exxonmobil or any other worldclass oil comny not to be dealing in russia is not even conceivable. so, here is a man who has built an extraordinary career and he was doing his job basically, which was trying to exact resources out of russia and do deals in russia, which would benefit his shareholders. that's the big gripe about rex tillerson, it has nothing to do
with national security. it's preposterous that this had as been lofted into such an enormous-- >> you're going to see pictures with vladimir putin and literally pinning a medal on the lapel of his business suit. stuart: okay. rick grinell, i think, this is my opinion, i think investors want to see mr. trump's entire cabinet confirmed and put in place because investors like what the policies that those cabinet members represent. do you think that all of mr. trump's picks will be confirmed? >> i do because republicans control the senate. i mean, that's just a fact and what harry reid did previously about the power of the minority, taking that away, largely, i think, signals that president-elect trump is going to get his entire cabinet. yes, i agree with the judge, there's going to be some very tough questioning from republicans, but i think that we haven't heard from these
nominees. we've heard from the media and too many people are going hysterical with what the media are saying at this point. we need to hear from the nominees and theseuys are professional. these women are incredibly expertise, and so, what i want to do is wait to hear from the nominees themselves who will be able to answer these questions and get us through the choppy water. stuart: on resident screen is performance of exxonmobil stock since mr. tillerson became ceo. i believe that's the time frame here of 52% gain. also, pay attention and bottom righthand corner of your screen, dow futures. that indicates a slightly higher open for the dow jones industrial average. the market actually went down yesterday during the hearings for the attorney general, jeff sessions. the market went down a little bit, but we're still holding about 100-odd points below the 20,000 level. doesn't look like we'll make a
run at it today, but what you're seeing, the left-hand side of the screen that's senator cornyn who is introducing mr. tillerson. i want to listen in for a moment. ins a republican who is very much in favor of tillerson. >> he's been recognized for his humility and his altruiusm. one of my constituents recently wrote a piece in the dallas morning newser offing on a jury with mr. tillerson. on that jury his natural leadership and charisma helped them render judgment in a difficult case of sexual assault. following the trial, mr. tillerson then donated to the local nonprofit that helped support and counsel the victim after the trial. mr. tillerson understands how to separate friendships and business. he knows who he works for. my first encounter with rex was when i was attorney general. i don't know if he remembers this, but we were on opposite
sides of a lawsuit. i was representing in my capacity as attorney general the state of texas and we had the termerity to sue exxonmobil. stuart: another issue that's going to come up in these hearings is obviously going to be climate change. rex tillerson runs, i think, it is the largest oil company in the world, that is fossil fuel personified exxonmobil andthat will clash with president obama's viewers on energy. and rick grinell there will be hostile questions on climate change. i think mr. tillerson will be pressed on what policy he will pursue while under a president trump. >> look, we had that discussion, i think, during the campaign and the democrat senators were going to be asking the questions and need to understand they lost and elections have consequences. and so, i think there's an agreement that there is some sort of climate change issues happening, but what to do about
them, how do we move forward, that's the question and i think that rex tillerson will give us insight on that. stuart: he's going to be asked. i think is that mr. tillerson will be asked will you withdraw from the paris climate treaty. asked flat-out. do you want to take us out of that? >> i think that the paris climate treaty is voluntary. it's going to be a trump-wide administration policy so i think he can dance on that pretty easily. >> and by the way, rex tillerson historically has been much more open to things like a carbon tax and the propagation of renewable views. i don't think he's viewed as an enemy of climate change activists because he's taken the world's largest oil company and actually adopted policies that are rather accommodating to a wide spectrum. ashley: a carbon tax in 2009 far more than cap and trade. but it wasn't the climate
denier stance that some peop say he's taken. liz: it comes in the context of president-elect trump saying global warming is a hoax, and think thanks that dispute climate change. and the former ceo of exxonmobil said, they questioned it, too, and backed out of the kyoto protocol. stuart: that's how it will take place. one senator will say you are aware that president-elect trump says that climate change is it a hoax. and what do you make of it. they'll ask him to define his position. >> and whatever president obama and secretary of state kerry cobbled together-- it's totally the president's decision and congress has nothing to do with it. >> the climate change issue doesn't bind china to any goals or-- .
if you look at the forward trajectory of emissions, what we do in the united states is inconsequential, compared to india and china. it's a fraction. stuart: under the deal, china is allowed to do what it likes until 2030 and after that, it supposed to try to reduce emissions. liz: t. boone pickens made the point you want to go after the oil companies, 70 to 80% of oil and gas goes to driving your car, that means you shut down the u.s. economy if you go hard on that. stuart: i will me the following prediction and, judge, see if you agree with this. i've made predictions about football and-- >> the government shrinking or expanding. stuart: it has to do with the hearing we're about to see. i bet -- not supposed to gamble on television, but there will be demonstrations and interruptions from the greens. yesterday, under jeff sessions, there were four interruptions during our show by people
claiming he was a racist. >> according to producers in the room the first people to enter it this morning is code pink. stuart: how do you stand on this? why is it that we allow people in knowing they're going to disrupt a perfectly constitutional point. >> their presence is lawful as long as they're silent. they can't disrupt, but they can sit and listen, and kicking them out until they stand up and disrupt. stuart: what can we charge them with. >> i'm sorry to say they're not charged. it's the repeated interruption has a charge. liz: and said the courtesy to listen. stuart: can't we bring the law to bear on people in a democracy? >> the good question, the law gives the sergeant at arms of the senate the discretion whether or not to charge and prosecute them.
you want everybody prosecuted? >> you know what? -- >> yes, i do. this is my country, my democracy, don't mess it up. >> the country is ready to move on. i think the more the stuff goes on and the more you have the demonstrations and et cetera, people are, okay, look, the democrats don't have the votes. these people are going to be confirmed in these positions. let's start talking about what they're going to do. what are their policies and, i mean, really, we're-- it seems to me on this russia thing particularly, we're skrabbling around. the election took place two months ago. >> is the left really going to say that tillerson is not tough enough on russia. >> remember obama's reset with russia? the idea is that we have policies and issues we should be working with the russians on. somehow that's dirty pool. liz: he'll be do you oppose
sanctions on russia. there's a unit coming up that did business with iran, syria and the sudan immaterial to its bottom line, but that's an exxonmobil unit now in the press right now. stuart: let me go on record and tell me that's entirely legitimate. that's precisely what we should be hearing in the hearings this morning. do you agree with sanctions on russia? what is your policy on climate change? i want to hear. what i don't want to hear is it reputation of these unverified and unsubstantiated claims about behavior previously. we've got news coming in. >> a statement by john mccain on recent reports of unverified, unsubstantiated. this is john mccain saying late last year i received sensitive information since been made public. upon examination of the contents and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, i delivered the information to the director of the fbi. that has been the extent of my contact with the fbi or any other government agency regarding this issue.
john mccain, brought these charges to the fbi, that picked them up. ashley: i received sensitive information that since has been passed onto the fbi, now it's been made public. he said that's my only role in all of it. stuart: which has not been verified. not been substantiated. ashley: not at all. stuart: and part of the charge has been proven to be wrong. >> it's a hoax. >> john mccain did exactly the right thing. you get foreign intelligence, you're a member of the united states senate you deliver it to the fbi and let them deal with it. stuart: left-hand side of the screen, you're looking at capitol hill where the tillerson hearing on him becoming the secretary of state, that is now in progress. that, i believe, is former senator sam nunn, is that correct, from the democrats? georgia democrat. he is part of the commentary that you get before the nominee himself stand up, takes the oath and starts to talk. there are two republicans, senators cornyn and cruz. there are two democrats, you're
hearing from one now, that's sam nunn, the other is bob gates. that's former defense secretary. >> yes, he is. >> former director-- >> for sessions yesterday. >> and i presume all four people are speaking for. >> i believe, and also former director of the cia. stuart: when mr. nun is finished, then it goes to bob gates, robert gates. he will have two, two and a half, three minutes to make his points about mr. tlerson, speaking, as you say, liz, in support of mr. tillerson. >> right. >> then it goes to mr. tillerson himself who makes >> yeah. stuart: i think he swears the oath first. liz: i think is had big theme will be the absence of leadership under the obama administration, ditherring over the red line head to green lights. and led to china demilitarizing the china sea. he will be a tough, tough diplomate in this office.
stuart: that's interesting. because the questioning will probably zero in on russia and climate change, but this is going to be the future secretary of state who deals with a much broader issue of international events. cuba policy, for example. >> that's right. >> china. >> iran. stuart: iran, for example, he's had contact with iranian leaders, i believe. >> the republicans, i assume, will go to topics that are favorable with the american people, such as disagreement with the iran accord. i think that americans do not think what president obama said last night in his speech that america is more respected around the world. stuart: i'm getting a comment from robbie mook. ashley: hillary clinton's campaign manager says cnn, james comey was given information about trump exchanges with russia last year, but no letter to congress and e voters? stunning. stuart: now, what would that-- >> the reference when mes
comey wrote a letter to the congress saying we have anthony weiner and huma abedin's laptop. mitch mcconnell's just announced, it's increasingly likely that president-elect trump will have a block of his cabinet confirmed by inauguration. >> mr. schumer leads the democrats in the senate and they've gotten together and said there will be a large block confirmed. >> technically the votes cannot be until inauguration day because the nominations cannot be made until after donald trump is sworn in as president. so, after he takes the oath he's going back into the capitol building and sign them
and mitch mcconnell can take them into the senate and vote on them. stuart: a block of nominees will be confirmed the moment after mr. trump becomes the president of the united states. >> he must have the agreement with senator schumer or else he wouldn't be saying this. stuart: that's interesting. i wonder who will not be in that block of confirmed people. >> i can guess that betsy devos is not going to make it. they've delayed her confirmation, his financial stuff is incomplete and very complicated. i have to say the liberal media continues to go after the high profile, very successful and wealthy people as though this is a discredit to their nomination or credentials. the truth of the matter is most are going to serve for a dollar a year, something you've never heard from the liberals, and-- >> it's a cabinet versus a
cabinet of organizers. and the world bank said, yes, global growth could hit near 3% due to the president-elect's tax cuts for corporations and individuals, it could be up. that's unusual for the world bank to say that. when you look at number of hours spent in the obama cabinet something like 117 hours in government. just five hours in business. versus for the trump elect cabinet. 83 years-- back up, 83 years in business, you know, so versus, you know, the five or the clinton-- excuse me, the obama cabinet. stuart: rick grinell, is this a win for president-elect trump that mr. connell and mr. schumer growed that there will be a large block of cabinet members confirmed on inauguration day? a win for trump? >> yes, a big win for trump, especially if most of those are his national security team. by having them in place immediately, on that same day, being able to take over the bureaucracy, begin to appoint
people below them, that goes a long way in really beginning to have the trump foreign policy begin to take hold, to stop the obama policies across the board in many-- in many of the agencies and begin to have this different change. >> do you want to see this, rick? i mean, i don't know where you are politically, but do u want to see president obama's policies reversed? >> drastically across the board i want to see many of them on the foreign policy side stopped and we need to start negotiating. i mean, i think you've got to have a completely different policy up at the u.n. with our u.s. ambassador, nikki haley. i think you've got to start negotiating with russia on what to do in syria. you've got to decide, does assad stay? our u.s. policy right now is that assad should go, but the reality is we haven't done anything about it. assad is there, he's going to be there for a while. so, i think that's one of the
issues that the foreign policy team has got to figure out. what is our policy towards assad. stuart: what you're seeing on the left-hand side of your screen is the opening statements from two democrats and two republicans, they have finished those opening statements. mr. tillerson is now standing-- sitting in front of the microphone. very so shortly, he will be swon in, take the oath. is that correct. >> both phrases are correct. stuart: and you do that before you say anything. >> yes, you do. stuart: when he's done that he'll sit down and give his opening statement. >> 12 minutes. stuart: 12 minutes. he'll give a broad range of issues if he's confirmed as secretary of state. we'll bring you the swearing in and bring you what he has to say in his opening statement. i believe senator corker is about to take over, he's the chair of this committee. there he goes. and he will have his opening statement. may i also remind you, it's
five minutes until the opening bell of the new york stock exchange. stock trading gets underway. this is a financial program, judge. [laughter] but my point would be, what you see at the hearing, and what you hear at president trump's, or president-elect trump's press conference will very probably have an impact on the stock market. if it looks like mr. trump gets all of his team in place and all of his policies in place, the market, i suggest, will do well, would you agree with that, liz. >> i totally agree. ashley: continue to stress the points he made on the campaign trail, not walk any back, that will give renewed confidence to investors. stuart: got it. we're listening to senator corker for the moment and shortly hearing from mr. tillerson himself. this is going to be a very big day. we often say, sit back, you've got a front row seat to history as it unfolds, if ever that was true, it's true today. you're about to see secretary of state hearings, confirmation
hearings, that gentleman right there and then at 11:00 this morning from trump tower, new york city, the major item of the day, in my personal opinion, that's the press conference given by president-elect donald trump. >> may i remind everyone while this is going on, the confirmation hearings of senator sessions are continuing and our producers are in the room, should there be any fireworks, you may get that. stuart: you may get that this afternoon with senator cory booker democrat new jersey force first time in history, he testifies against someone who is nominated for attorney general. never seen that before. >> in order to do that he must take the oath. imagine putting a politician under oath requiring him to tell the truth. [laughter] >> why do you find that funny? >> because don't want to be boxed in like that. >> a great opportunity. stuart: cory booker-- senator cory booker is on this committee, this is the senate
foreign relations commit. mr. cory booker is on that committee, there he is, and he will be asking questions this morning. >> oh, boy. stuart: of rex tillerson. then this afternoon, he becomes, dare i say, a hostile witness against jeff sessions for attorney general. what a day this is. ashley: i can't wait for the trump press conference, all of his tweeting one of the questions he asked in a tweet is are we living in nazi germany, because of the leak of-- >> do you think he's going to be in the audience at the press conference. stuart: it was buzz feed that leaked this, or walked this out, put this out. >> with no verification at all and even admitting they had no-- it really is a pretty extraordinary decision to publish that in my view. stuart: it is a disgrace. >> yeah, it is. stuart: and donald trump is furious and rightly so. >> and rightly so. >> and hillary clinton's stuff that came out was actually tr. these were actual true. they never said that john
podesta's e-mails were not his e-mails, they were true. stuart: is he going to blast the media. liz: ask how it ended up in the president's daily briefing? >> exactly. stuart: i presume, i don't know for a fact, but he's going to excoriate-- >> it will go back to the briefings that were leaked to nbc. the secret, high level briefings there are given to the president of the united states and president-elect and nbc news got there. >> seriously, doesn't you begin to wonder? remember the centcom information that was distorted that they presented to president obama about what was really going on with isis, they cleaned it up, et cetera. you begin to wonder about this intelligence information. >> doesn't all of this play into his criticisms of the intelligence community as a whole? connell: he wants to restructure. >> need to restructure it. stuart: and donald trump could emerge from this looking good. ashley: yes, yes. >>. stuart: because the charges are so outrageous, disgusting, out
of bounds entirely, he looks good and-- listen to what he's been saying so far. the market is about to open. take threw in a second. listen to this, russia never tried to do anything over me, i have no deals, nothing. and a movement is verified and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with fake news, a sorry tale. the dow industry opened up, it's 9:30, just after that, this is wednesday morning, you're watching history throughout the day, the tillerson hearings, the 11:00 press conference and the dow opened with a 29, 27 point gain. we're at 19,883. this market could be affected by what you are going to see today. the tillerson hearing and especially the trump press conferen conference. there we go, a lost for words? >> no, the president-elect will say something that will make you very, very happy. stuart: that is? >> push the dow over 20,000 on your watch.
[laughter] >> you think? connell: the tax cuts immediately. stuart: i expect him to attack the media vigorously. >> and by the way, it raises a question that, this is all a disinformation campaign by the russians. is it now the case that they were trying to bolster hillary clinton, i mean, denigrate hillary clinton and bolster donald trump? does it look like they went after bothandidates? it kind of upends this whole one-sided story, doesn't it? i mean, right? >> fair point. ashley: it up-ends that onesided story. liz: tillerson would be asked, what is your position on the dnc. stuart: he's been the ceo v exxonmobil for years and years and years, he can handle this. keith fitz, our market watcher from the west coast. keith, is there any relationship between what we're going to see from the tillerson hearings and the trump press conference, any relationship between that and what we see
happen on the stock market? >> i sure hope so, stuart. here is the thing, it's all about confidence, it's about moving forward. you're looking at potentially a cabinet that understands business, they understand real money. and for that reason, i think, investors are looking at them saying, look, if they get in, then all of these things they have been talking about, potentially pro business, really create jobs, really create money, even if you don't like the politics. stuart: you mentioned confidence and i think we were-- yesterday, there came this story about optimism of small business, there is an index that measures optimism of small business and it went to a 12-year high, a huge gain in optimism just since the election. i rather feel, keith, that that was glossed over because of the coverage of the jeff sessions hearings for attorney general. and the demonstrations against him. i think that was lost in the flux here. >> you know, there's that old
movie lost in translation, i think you're absolutely right, stuart. that's a very important statistics because small businesses create 50, 60, 70, 80% of the net worth of this country, they create jobs, they create intellectual property, hope and aspirations. anybody can start a business in this country if they've got the right environment. not covering that was a tremendous injustice as to what hope and change actually feels like in this country now. stuart: i can tell some of the more widely held technology stocks have gone up a little in the very early going. i have microsoft up 5 cents, $62 a share. amazon is down $3, but facebook moving higher, around 124 this morning. that's what's going on, not that much movement for the individual stocks and overall, the dow industrials up 22. in case you're wondering why we're holding on a picture of that gentleman right there, that is rex tillerson, the ceo of exxonmobil. he is waiting to make his
opening statement in the confirmation hearing for him to become the secretary of state of the united states of america. talking at this moment is senator bob corker, who is introducing the whole proceedings and making his opening statement. he is that gentleman right there, he is the chair of the committee which is going to confirm or otherwise mr. tillerson. actually it's the full senate that confirms or denies. >> correct. stuart: they just take a vote on this committee. >> correct. stuart: that vote is generally reflected in the full senate. >> correct. stuart: got it. lizzie. liz: more on code pink protesters, they were kicked out and hoisting signs with phrases like tillerson, good for exxon, good for america and tillerson, corporate america's man. so, they're addressing pink feather boas, and holding cash. and they were kicked out of the room. >> it's like-- >> after the eight years of the obama administration. >> do you want me to defend
code pink? if they sit there silently, how absurdly they're dressed they have a right to sit and listen. they must have been doing something. >> raising signs. liz: they violateded rules against holding signs. stuart: they're violating the rules against holding up signs. prosecute them! . [laughter] >> i'm telling you what. now, we are going to take full mr. tillerson's opening remarks. he wants to be, he is probably going to be the secretary of state of the united states. we want to know what he's thinking on various issues. ashley: stu, we've had eight years of policy tigses and before that too, never had to make wages for anyone, never created businesses and now we have captains of industry, people who have run the biggest companies in the world, have been successful, they know how to make a deal, know when to give and when it take, why wouldn't we want these people representing us who have proven themselves in the real world.
liz: i can't get over the finding that eight of obama's top officials had just five years in the private sector experience versus, you know premium, 83 years. >> a 117 years in government. stuart: eight of president obama cabinet members. liz: top officials. stuart: eight of them each had at best. liz: combined. stuart: combined. liz: five years in business according to the financial times. >> in an era when americans want term limits, that's damning. career politicians, not a good word. stuart: that's a shock, liz. liz: stunned. ashley: why should we not want rex tillerson accountable to shareholders and knows how to make a deal. stuart: this is the first time that i can remember, when, as you say,a captain of industry is subject to what is probably going to be hostile political questioning. you get it from your board of
directors, get it from shareholders, but don't get it from-- >> he's going to get it from at least one member of his own party, marco rubio who sits on that committee. stuart: what is senator rubio's beef. >> that this man, rex tillerson about to take the oath any minute now, might be too cozy with or have too rosie a view of vladimir putin. that's marco rubio, john mccain, lindsey graham's beef and they have every right to interrogate him to satisfy themselves their beef is legitimate >> by the way, any senior executive of a company like this has been briefed over the career that he's had by the cia, trust me, about what is it going on in russia. he knows what's going on in russia. to think that he's ignorant-- >> is thse. stuart: you think that the ceo of exxonmobil will have been briefed at some point by the cia on his overseas business dealings? >> yes, i can guarantee you. stuart: you know this? >> i totally do know this.
that's what happens in the so-called c-suite of major corporations. they have access to and in fact the cia probably asked him at some point or another, if you hear anything while you're in moscow that is of interest to us, please let us know, that's called intelligence on the ground. >> and we promise you we won't tell you which of your employees is also on our payroll. [laughter] >> stop laughing, people. the trouble is, if senator rubio raises that legitimate issue, which is, mr. tillerson's relationship with vladimir putin. >> yes. stuart: in comes this extraneous nonsense about disgusting behavior by mr. trump uncovered by the russians, blackmail material and that gets piled in. >> liz is right, he's probably been briefed on it and is ready. >> by the way, he will drown them in information about his business dealings which will probably go over the heads of most the people in this hearing room, forgive me, about how important this was or unimportanit was to exxon's
bottom line, but whye spent time there. it's completely legitimate. that's what's so infuriating about this. stuart: did anybody around this table one year ago imagine that we would be sitting here commenting on the ceo of exxonmobil, who may well be the next secretary of state of the united states of america? nobody saw this. >> no. >> and just remember his predecessors in this role. can we talk about john kerry throwing his medals in the river and hillary clinton's dealings with, you know, questionable dealings with her foundation and everything? i should say we're looking at a substantial upgrade for the role of secretary of state, forgive me. stuart: and yet. >> being charitable. stuart: and by the left to slime the cabinet and slime the incoming president. >> and among the democrats, edward markey from massachusetts, chris murphy from connecticut, chris can kunz from delaware proper the spear throwers.
>> what will be more damaging will be the republicans. because the media fastens on graham and mccain. this is the biggest moment they've had in decades because so eager to have discord in the party. >> depends how aggressive marco rubio has to get. he's expressed misgiving how the white house-- or the transition team whether they have his votes. liz: he has aspirations to be president. >> guess what, trump voters are hoping this works out okay. stuart: yes, well, i believe senator corker is about to wrap up his opening remarks. he did in fact just start to come to an end. senator carden is next, a democrat from maryland. he may be a little bit more hostile. let's listen in briefly to what senator carden has to say. >> we do want to hear your views particularly as relates to many of the challenges that
chairman corker went through in his opening statement. it's a pleasure to have you in our committee. public service, secretary gates, thank you for all your service and you honor our committee, both of you by being here today. and i also want to once again welcome our new colleagues, senator booker, senator merkley, senator young, i've worked with all four of you before in all capacities and i know your commitment to our national security and foreign policy and you all will be great additions to our committees. i want to acknowledge senator king, it's not the first time senator king has been here to observe, we've got to get you on the committee. we thank you for your interest in the hearing. mr. tillerson as i told you in our private meeting, thank you, thank you for being willing to serve the public. it's not easy to put yourself forward as you found since your nomination has been brought forward.
your life has changed pretty dramatically not just for you, but for your entire family and thank you for your willingness to serve our country. providing advice and consent on the nominees of the president is one of the most important constitutional powers of the senate. it's an awesome responsibility and one that i know that all of us on this committee take with the utmost seriousness. mr. tillerson, there is no question about your impressive record in the business world, rising through the ranks and then running exxon, one of the largest multinational operations in the world. yet, i would offer, having a view from the c-suite at exxon, is know the at all the same as a view from the 7th floor of the department of state. and those who suggest that anyone who can run a successful business can, of course, run a vernment agency do a profound disservice to both. serving the narrow
market-driven interest of exxon shareholders is the know the staple as serving the national interest of all the american people. effective corporate government management does not always lend itself to decision making where bureaucracies such as congress, in different circles than maximizing profits. i want to get is sense how you pivoting from the mindset of an oil man focused on profits, to that of a statesman promoting american interests and values around the world. as you know, congress has a separate and co-equal branch of government has a role to play in assuring that the values that animated our nation since its founding continue to flourish. first i want to share with you as i did in our private meeting, my vision of the role of the policy and the role of secretary of state with that policy.
i approached the hearing with clear connections of the next administration. a world by partners, governed bylaws and institution by the liberal national order, one where we champion our values both at home and abroad. indeed, i think it's worth spending a few minutes this morning on the questions of human rights, democracy, good governance, anti-corruption, and civil society support. it is worth doing so both because of the critical importance of these issues for america's role in the world, and our values are our interests, know the a separate set of considerations. but also because of the nature of exxon and your work there. mr. tillerson, leaves some troubling questions how you view these issues and how you as secretary of state intend to approach them. as you may know, over the course of my tenure in the house and senate, i've championed the cause of human rights and the importance of
democratic process and good governance. so, when i see violations of the sovereignty by china in the south china sea, i speak out. when i see gross human rights violations in ethiopia, i speak out. when i see massive corruptions in countries with extreme poverty like ecuador i speak out and when i see severe erosion in venezuela, i speak out. indeed, events over the past year serve as a stark reminder that democracy will not defend itself. it requires those of us who believe in the enduring values of the democratic experience-- experiment to nature and support it and to defend it from authoritarian opponents who did not share our values. perhaps the most egregious events we've seen recently has been what happened by president putin of russia, having effectively killed the nation's
nuanced democracy, has led across europe and the former soviet union to erode support for democraticinstitutions and calls into question, well established rules of the road. moscow directs efforts to undermine democracy by false news, cyber attacks and populous political parties abroad. perhaps it should come as no surprise that these nefarious activities reached our shore and is stunning nevertheless. last week the intelligence community that mr. putin did indeed direct efforts to interfere in our election, that's their conclusion that the kremlin attacked hillary clinton and directed resources to that end. i'm not saying that russia's efforts were decisive in our election outcome, that's not the point. the point is that we, the united states, were victims of cyber attack of our democrat sick process. recent news accounts indicate that russia may well have information about mr. trump and
they could use that to compromise our presidency. it cannot be business as usual. that's why i was proud to introduce a bipartisan bill yesterday, with senator mccain and several members of this committee, including senator menendez, shaheen, rubio and portman, along with senator graham, and durbin which impose and enhanced sanctions on russia for interference in our election and aggression in ukraine and syria, we need to stand up to this bully in moscow and increase the cost for his behavior. so i was disappointed that in your prepared opening remarks submitted to the committee yesterday, there was no mention about the direct confirmed cyber attack by russia on america. but you did find time to say it was the absence of american leadership that this door was left open and unattended signals were sent. so i want to know exactly what additional actions the united states should have taken against russia, in your view.
do you, for example, support additional sanctions against russia, demonstrating america's leadership like what my colleagues and i introduced yesterday. mr. tillerson, i'm sure you can understand why i and many of my colleagues have deep concerns about your relationship with mr. putin. and this is not simply a question of what you saw when you gazed into his eyes. you don't strike me as someone likely to be naive. but how exxon conducted itself directly and indirectly, funding for the tools that putin used to crush democracy and at home and so division abroad. i do not suggest it's your intent, it's frankly not a great of a distance from exxon's business partnerships to putin's kremlin slush funds for campaigns around the world. ignore the 17 intelligence
agencies, the same president you would report to, made it clear, putin's interference in syria, russians forces partnered with iran, hezbollah and shia militia, to a dictator guilty of war crimes. russ russia-- assad, starved, barrel bombed syrian people into emission and president trump may take quick steps to make putin an ally of america. there are serious thoughts about russia and we need to understand your views as the chairman has said on critical views of national security. if we take seriously your tenure at exxon serves as qualifications to are secretary of state, then there's like wise a serious discussion this
committee needs to have about the potential for conflicts of interest that arise from your long corporate tenure. for far too long u.s. policy has treated core issues as secondary issues. if you become our top diplomate i want to know if government issues will become a primary consideration. i've worked to treat government issues as one of the most important aspects of our foreigpocy. i have been centrally involved in efforts over the years to extract industries, to foster high standards on uncorrupt practices and use the tools at our disposal when it comes to supporting civil rights and human societies. i'm troubled that exxon under your leadership appears to have been pushing in the opposite direction. mr. tillerson we have much to disgust. if confirmed you will be assuming your job at a consequence time. i believe that the united states stands at a turn point
in history. national power, economic, diplomatic redefined across the globe. international institutions and international financial economic orders are under distress. climate change is causing irreparable harm. there's a determination that our support for american values is uncertain. and clearly, candidate trump added to that uncertainty. we have global challenges, the middle east is under j going a period of unprecedented-- iran is with the united states and its allies, there are no less than three civil wars in this part of the world. u.s. leadership is not only to support movement toward negotiated political settlements. six years after the hope of our spring, the region entered into a long winter in which many governments are back sliding in inclusive politics for civil society and open economies.
the fractured middle east underscores by fundamental belief that the united states cannot pursue a hard nosed security agenda or economic ties without privatizing values such as political inclusion, human rights and free active media and civil society. without these elements instability will persist. with serious implications for countering violent extremism extending the flow of refugees headed for europe's shore. i also need to stress our important partner this this part of the world, israel needs more than tweets how great our relationship is going to be. the i hope we'll hear with concrete proposals the way forward of strengthening that strategic partnership. in spite of the challenges, an opportunity exists for the country. president obama leaves the next administration as an inheritance strengthened relationships with historic allies in europe and asia, a
reenergized partnership with india and growing economic relationship with subsaharan africa and u.s. security and economic interest. i recognize what i outlined here may not be in line with president-elect trump's view of the world. but standing up against war crimes, human rights violations against corruption and speaking up for democracy and freedom of speech must be at the forefront of america's forei policy agen. i want to note if confirmed you'll be taking over as leader of one of the skilled and able work forces of any organization on the planet. our foreign affairs and development professionals are truly among the most able and dedicated of our public servants on the front lines safe gar guarding our national security and as chairman of this committee, benefitted from that over the years. i hope you'll take advantage of
the those deeply committed to extending our values and interest i'm sure you and our nation will benefit greatly from a full and robust relationship between you and the department you would lead. i look forward to hearing from the witness and questioning. >> mr. tillerson, thank you for being here-- >> we're going to hear from mr. tillerson in a moment. what we just heard the ranking democrat of the committee that was a very long and frankly hostile statement from senator ben carden democrat of maryland, directed at mr. tillerson. he brought up the relationship with iran, the relationship with russia and said, i believe this is a direct quote, liz, russia may have information that could hurt trump. >> yes, it's in the context of russia interference in the election. >> okay, and that adds to the fire that we've had already this morning, let's listen in
now, here is mr. tillerson. >> a life long educator, mathematics, teacher, math teacher coach and teaching many, many years in the texas public school systems. my sister, dr. ran hamilton, a family practice position in abilene texas more than 30 years and my brother-in-law judge lee milton now finishing or just begun to serve his fifth term on the bench at 104th district in abilene, texas, appreciate so much the support and love they've given me in my past endeavors, but most importantly they'd come all the way from texas to be with me today. good morning, chairman corker and others, i'm honored to have the backing of senator cornyn and senator cruz from my home state of texas. and senator nun for nuclear nonproliferation, he remains as
secretary gates for his service to eight u.s. presidents and his own leadership as president of the boy scouts of america. chairman corker, ranking member carden and members of the committee, it's honor to be here today to have president-elect trump's nomination for secretary of state and the full committee for nomination. i come to you at a pivotal time in the history of our nation and our world. nearly everywhere we look, people and nations are deeply unsettled. old ideas and international norms which were well understood and governed behaviors in the past may no longer be effective in our time. we face considerable threats in thisevolving new environment, china has emergdz as an economic power in global trade and our interactions have been both friendly and adversarial. while russia seeks respect and relevance on the global stage,
its recent activities have disregarded america's interests. radical islam is not a new ideology, but it is hateful, deadly, and an illegitimate expression of the islamic faith. adversaries like iran and north korea pose great threats to the world because of their refusal to go to international norms as we coront these realities how should america respond? my answer is simple, to achieve the stability foundational to peace and stability in the 21st century, american leadership must not only be renewed, it must be asserted. we have many advantages on which to build. our alliances are durable and our allies are looking for a return of our leadership. our men and women in uniform are the world's finest fighting force. and we possess--
[person yelling] >> protect my community, protect america. mr. tillerson, reject you, hurricane sandy-- >>. stuart: our men and women in uniform are the world's finest fighting force and we possess the world's largest economy. america is still the destination of choice for people the world over because of our track record of benevolence and home for our fellow man. and america has the stability to prevent another world war, increase global prosperity and encourage the expansion of liberty. our role in the world has also historically entailed a place of moral leadership in the scope of international affairs, america's level of goodwill toward the world is unique and we must continue to display a commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, and principled
action in our foreign policy. quite simply, we are the only global super power with the means and the moral compass capable of shaping the world for good. if we do not lead, we risk plunging the world deeper into confusion and danger. but we have stumbled. in recent decades we have cast american leadership into doubt. in some instances we have withdrawn from the world. in others, we have intervened with good intentions, but did not achieve the stability and global security we sought. instead, our actions and our non-actions have triggered a host of unintended consequences and created a void of uncertainty. today our friends still want to help us, but they don't know how. and meanwhile, our adversaries have been emboldened to take advantage of the absence of american leadership. in this campaign president-elect trump proposed a bold new interest in our foreign policy.
i hope to explain what this approach means and how i would implement it if confirmed secretary of state. americans welcome this rededication to american new leadership is in incomplete without accountability. if accountability does not start with ourselves, we can not credibly extendç it to our friends and our adversaries. we must hold ourselves accountable to upholding promises we make to others. and an america that can be trusted in good faith is essential to supporting our partners, achieving our goals and insuring our security. we must hold our allies accountable to commitments they make. we can not look the other way at allies who do not meet their obligations. this is an injustice not only to us but to long-standing friend who honor their promises, and bolster our own national security such as israel. and we must hold those who are not our friend accountable to the agreements they make.
our failure to do this over the recent decades has diminished our standing and encouraged bad actors around the world to break their word. we can not afford to ignore violations of international accords as we have done with iran. we can not continue to accept empty promises like the ones china has made to pressure north korea to reform, only to shy away from enforcement. looking the other way when trust is broken only encourages more bad behavior, and it must end. we can not be accountable though, if we are not truthful and honest in our dealings. as you are aware, my long-standing involvement with the boy scouts of america, one of bedrock ideals is honesty. the phrase, on my honor, begins the boy scout oath and it must under gird our foreign policy in particular we need to be honest about radical islam. it is with good reason our fellow citizens have a growing
concern about radical islam and murderous acts committed in its name against americans and our friends. radical islam poses a grave risk to the stability of nations and the well being of their citizens. powerful digital media platforms now allow isis, al qaeda and other terror groups to spread a poisonous ideology that runs completely counter to the values of the american people and all people around the world who value human life. these groups are often enabled and embowlenned by nations, organizations an individuals sympathetic to their cause. these actors must face consequences for aiding and abetting what can only be called evil. most urgent step in thwarting radical islam is defeating isis. the middle east and its surrounding regions pose many challenges which require our attention, including syria, iraq and afghanistan. there are competing priorities in this region which must be and will be addressed.
but they must not distract from ourç utmost mission of defeatig isis. because when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. defeating isis must be our foremost priority in the middle east. eliminating isis would be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our homeland and our allies. the demise of isis will allows us to increase our attention on other agents of radical islam like al qaeda, muslim brotherhood and certain elements within iran, but defeat will not occur on the battlefield alone. we must win the war of ideas. if confirmed, i will insure the state department does its part in supporting muslims around the world who reject radical islam in all of its forms. we should also acknowledge the realities about china. china's island-building in the south china sea is an illegal taking of disputed areas without
regard for international norms. china's economic and trade practices have not always followed its commitments to global agreements. it steals our intellectual property, and ising a address sieve and expansionist in the digital realm. it has not been a reliable partner using its full influence to curb north korea. china has proven a willingness to act with abandon in the pursuit of its own goals which at times put it in conflict with american interests. we have to deal with what we see, not what we hope. but we need to see the positive dimensions in our relationship with china as well. the economic well-being of our two nations is deeply intertwined. china has been a valuable ally in curtailing certain elements of radical islam. we should not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership. we must also be clear-eyed about
our relationship with russia. russia deposes a danger but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests. it is has invaded the ukraine including the taking of crimea and supported syrian forces that brutally violates the laws of war. our nato allies are right to be alarmed at a resurgent russia. but it was in the absence of american leadership that this door was left open and unintended signals were sent. we backtracked on commitments we made to allies. we sent weak or mixed signals with red lines that turned into green lights. we did not recognize that russia does not think like we do. words alone do not sweep away aç uneven, at times a contentious history between our two nations but we need an open and frank dialogue with russia regarding its ambitions, so we know how to chart our own course. where cooperation with russia
based on common interest is possible, such as reducing the global threat of terrorism, we ought to explore these options. where important differences remain, we should be steadfast in defending the interests of america and her allies. russia must know that we will be accountable to our commitments, and those of our allies, and that russia must be held to account for its actions. our approach to human rights begins by acknowledging that american leadership requires moral clarity. we do not face an either/or choice on defending global human rights. our values are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance. it is unreasonable to expect th every foreign policy endeavor wil b driven by human rights considerations alone especially when the security of the american people is at stake but our leadership demands actions specifically focused on improving the conditions of
people the world over, utilizing both aid and where appropriate economic sanctions as instruments of foreign policy. we must adhere to standards of accountability. our recent engagements with the government of cuba was not accompanied by any significant concessions on human rights. we have not held them accountable for their conduct. their leaders received much while their people received little. that serves neither the interest of cubans or americans. abraham lincoln declared that america is the last, best, hope of earth. our moral light must not go out if we are to remain an agent of freedom for mankind, supporting human rights and our foreign policy is a key component of clarifying to a watching world what america stands for. in closing let us also be proud about the ideals that define us and the liberties we have secured ad great costs.
ingenuity and ideas and culture of americans that came before us made the united states the greatest nation of history, so have their sacrifices. we should never forget we stand on shoulders of those who sacrificed much and some cases everything. they include our fallen heroes in uniform, our foreign service officers and other americans in the field who likewise gave all for their country. if confirmed, in my work for the president and theç american people, i will seek to engender trust with foreign leaders and governments, and put in place agreements that will serve the purposes and interests of american foreign policy. the secretary of state works for the president and seeks to implement his foreign policy objectives. to do that i must work closely with my cabinet colleagues, and all relevant departments and agencies of the administration to build consensus. but let me also stress that keeping the president's trust means keeping the public trust.
in keeping the publictrust, means keeping faith with our elected representatives. i want all of the members of this committee to know should i be confirmed, i will listen to your concerns and those of your staff and partner together to achieve great things for the country we all love. i'm an engineer by training. i seek to understand the facts, follow where they lead, and apply logic to all international affairs. we must see the world for what it is, have clear priorities, and understand that our power is considerable but it is not infinite. we must where possible build pathways to new partnerships and strengthen old bonds which have frayed. if confirmed i intend to conduct a foreign policy consistent with these ideals. we will never apologize for who we are or what we hold dear. we will see the world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the american people, follow facts where they lead us, and
hold ourselves and others accountable. i thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, for your testimony. stuart: that was a tough opening statement from rex tillerson. he said, we can not shy away from violation of international accords and agreements, ignoring it must end. we must be honest about radical islam and he used that word consistently. evil must face consequences. that's what he said. it amounted to a a reto president obama and reversal of president obama's retreat on foreign policy. senator corker is now opening the first question. , cardin, i'm sorry. >> free societies around the world, that support the aspirations of their people including basic human rights is in our long-term national security interest? >> without question, senator. >> do you also agree russia under mr. putin's leadership fails in that category? >> yes, sir. >> so, what we try to do in
order to provide national, international is put a face on an issue. thousands of people in russia have bewn harmed or killed as a result of mr. putin's leadership, and millions have been impacted by that. there is one person who lost his life in a courageous way, sergey magnitsky, a young attorney, representing a client with u.s. interests. found corruption, did what any lawyer is supposed to do, report it to the authorities. as a result he was arrested, tortured and killed and those who benefited from the corruption were held with no accountability whatsoever. through u.s. leadership we brought that case to the international forum. the congress has passed a law, the magnitsky law. other countries have now passed similar laws to deny our banking system and the right to visit our country to those who
perpetrated those gross violations of human rights that were not held accountable by russia. do you support that law? >> yes, sir, i do. >> thank you for that because under the obama administration there have been 39 individuals who have been, individually anctioned. under the magnitsky law and five more were just recently added on monday. that law provides for congress to be able to submit through appropriate channels additional names to be reviewed by the administration for inclusion for sanctions. do you commit that you will follow that provision on law, on names that we submit to you for potential sanctions for human rights violations under the magnitsky law? >> senator, i will insure that the if confirmed, myself and the state department does comply with that law. >> and, year under the national defense authorization act, that was extended globally.
it now applies to human rights violations in, throughout the world. do you also commit to support the global magnitsky law using the tools of our visa restrictions to prevent human rights violators from coming to america? >> now, senator, again consistent with all applicable laws that might impact immigration, we'll endeavor to comply with that, yes. >> the law allowed the secretary of state, visas are privileges to come to america. there is no, there is no due process issue on issuing of visas. this is a privilege to be able to come to a country. so we have, there's no, i'm not aware of any restrictions on your ability to withdraw the right of someone to come to america.ç there may be other than through treaties that we have diplomats to come in, which is exempted from that provision. >> i understand, senator. that was what i intended.
i would think a full examination was made of any and all applicable laws or other policies but then we would follow those and, implement. >> you mentioned, in statement about the invasion by russia of crimea. does russia have a, in your view, a legal claim to crimea? >> no, sir. that was a taking of territory that was not theirs. >> and, do you agree that russia has not complied with the minsk agreement with regard to the resolution on ukraine? >> the process for implementing the minsk agreement, i understand it continues. fullompletion of all the minsk accords has not yet been achieved. >> i want to get your view on the sanctions that the united states applied. maybe i'll drill down, if i might, by asking you this first question. you, stated in your statement that part of the reasons why
russia or we were ineffective in preventing russia that we didn't exercise stronger international leadership. what would you have done, recommended to have been done, to prevent russia from doing what it did? >> well, senator, in terms of the taking of crimea, i think my understanding is that caught a lot of people by surprise. it certainly caught me by surprise, just as a private citizen. so i think the real question was the response to the taking of crimea, that then led to subsequent actions by russia which i mentioned. the next action being, coming across the border of eastern ukraine, with both military assets, and men. that was the next illegal action i think the absence of a very firm and forceful response to the taking of crimea was judged by the leadership in russia as a weak response and therefore -- >> so what would you have done,
after we were surprised by what they did in taking over crimea, what should the u.s. leadership have done in response to that that we didn't do? >> i would have recommended that the ukraine, take all of its military assets it had available, put them on that eastern border, provide those assets with defensive weapons, that are necessary just to defend themselves, announce that the u.s. is going to provide them intelligence, and that there will either nato or u.s. willç provide air surveillance over that border to monitor any movements. >> so your recommendation would have been to, do a more robust supply of military? >> yes, sir. what, i think what russian leadership would have understand, would have understood is a powerful response that indicate, yes, you took the crimea, but this stops right here. >> so, to understand, our nato partners, particularly in the
ball i can its and poland, are very concerned about russian aggression. nato has deployed troops in this region in order to show russia that article v means something. i take it you support that type of action? >> yes, sir, i do. that, that is the type of response that russia expects. if russia acts with force, taking of crimea was an act of force. they didn't just volunteer themselves. so it require ad proportional act, proportional show of force to indicate to russia that there will be no taking of territory. >> that is encouraging to me. that is not exactly consistent what mr. trump has been saying with regards to article v commitments under nato by the united states. so i appreciate your commitment, your views on that issue. so let me get to the response that was done. we imposed, u.s.-led sanctions against russia as a result of
its conduct in ukraine. we went to europe and were able to get europe to act. the united states, in my view wanted to go even further but we couldn't get europe to go beyond what they were willing to do. do you agree or disagree with that strategy for the united states to lead by showing sanctions as we did? >> senator, sanctions are a powerful tool and they're an important tool in terms of deteriorating additional action, once actors have acted up. we want to deter any further action on their part. yes, american leadership, is often times, if not almost always required to demonstrate that first step. >> and as you understand, unless we move and we have to move in a strong position, we're going to be the best? we're going to the got strongest reaction on sanctions from the united states. we saw that in iran and, i know that some of us have mentioned to you the legislation was filed
yesterday. i don't know if you had a chance yet to respond to it or not. i might do that for questions for the record. but, we have legislation, i would urge you to take a look at, that seems consistent with what you're sayingç here, that would provide the administration, the administration with the tools to show russia that if you attack us by cyber, or you continue to do what you're doing in ukraine, or what you're doing in georgia, that there is going to be an economic price you're going to pay. i take it you believe that's a powerful tool and one that you would consider applying? >> senator, i have not had the opportunity to review the legislation. i'm aware that it has been introduced, and yes, i think, in carrying out the state department carrying out its diplomacy or carrying out its important role trying to negotiate a different course of action to, a different pathway, we need a strong deterrent in
our hand. it is the old tenet of teddy roosevelt, talk softly and carry a big stick. in terms ever diplomacy it is useful to have a stick in your hand, whether you use it or not becomes part of that conversation. >> let me ask one final question and i was meeting with mr. pruitt yesterday and i was acting about his view of global leadership on climate issues, he said you should ask that question to the secretary of state nominee so i will ask it to you. we were part of cop 21. do you agree the united states should continue international leadership on climate changes issues with the international community? >> i think it is important that the united states maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around how to address threats of climate change, which do require a global response. no one country is going to solve this alone. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator rubio. >> welcome, mr. tillerson. do you believe during the 2016
presidential campaign russian intelligence services directed a campaign of active measures iolving the hacking of emails, strategic leak of these emails, the use of internet trolls and dissemination of fake news and with the goal of denigrating a an election and under minding the faith of our election process. >> senator, i have had no unclassified briefings because i have not received my clearance. i read the inneragency report released on january 6th. that report is clearly troubling, indicate all the actions you described were undertaken. >> based on your knowledge, of russian leaders and russian politics, do you believe these activities could have happened without the knowledge and consent of vladmir putin? >> i'm not in a position to be able to make that determination. again that is indicated in the report but i know there is additional classified information -- engaged in significant business activities in russia. i'm sure you're aware very few
things of major proportion in that country happen without vladmir putin's permission. so i asked based on your views of russian politics and your experience is it possible for something like this involving the united states electionshave happened without vladmir putin knowing about it and, and authorizing it? >> i think that is a fair assumption. >> that he would have? >> yes. >> it congress passed a bill imposing mandatory visa bans and asset freeze sanctions on persons that engaged? significant activities undermining the private security of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions in the united states would you advise the president to sign it? >> i would certainly want to examine all of theorne, all four corners of that -- >> those are the four corners. we would sanction people involved in cyber attacks against the united states and interfering in our elections. >> the threat of cyber attacks is a broad issue. those are coming from many, many corners of the world. certainly this most recent manifestation, and i think the
new threat posed in terms of how russia has used this as a tool, that introduces even another element of threat. but, cyber attacks are occurring from many nations. >> so no matter where they come from, if they come from belgium or france, if someone is conducting cyber attacks against the united states and we pass a law that authorizes the president to sank then them on imposes sanctions as mandatory, would you advise the president to sign it? >> i think that it is that second element, senator, that you just described leaves the executive branch no latitudes or flexibility in dealing with the broad array of cyber threats. i think it is important that those be dealt with on a country by country basis, taking all other elements into consideration, in the relationship so, giving the executive the tool is one thing. requiring the executive to use it without any other considerations i would have concerns about. >> mr. tillerson i understand your testimony, if it was mandatory you would not be able to advise the president to sign
it because you want the president to have the flexibility to decide which countries to sanction and which ones not to sanction? >> under which circumstances to sanction. >> in essence you want to be able to take other things into account, like, for example to improve relations with that country and therefore the president maybe doesn't want to sanction them even though they're attacking us? >> there would be whole array of issues that would require consideration, trading issues, trade relation issues, mutual agreements around our national security. so i don't think it's, i don't think it isç appropriate, certainly for me, at this time to indicate i would just say it is a blanket, a blanket application. i think that is the role of the executive branch. it is the role of the secretary of state and state department to assist and inform the president in judgments of about how to use what is a clearly powerful tool. >> well, again, i mean what is
troubling about your answer is the implication somehow if there is some country that we're trying to improve relations with or have significant economic ties with, the president, you may advise the president not to and impose sanctions on that country on individuals in that country out of concern it could damage our, the rest of our relationship with them, on a cyberattack which is a direct attack on our national security and our electoral process. let me ask you, would you advise the president-elect to repeal the obama administration recent executives order regarding cybersecurity and russian interference in the 2016 elections? >> i think the president-elect indicated, if confirmed i would support that what's really required is a comprehensive assessment of our cyber threat and cybersecurity policies. in my view, based on what i've been able to read and have been briefed, we do not have a cybersecurity policy. we do not have a comprehensive strategy around how to deal with what has been a rapidly-emerging
threat. instead we're seeing it manifest itself in ways we never envisioned. >> mr. tillerson, i understand the cybersecurity plan. we have to have one to protect ourselves and handle seibert attacks against our country. that is separate from the question people already conducted attacks should be zing shunned and singled out? there is executive order that is now active that has sanctioned those individuals and my question is, do you believe that executive order should be repealed by the incoming president? >> if confirmed, senator, i would want to examine it and all aspects of in consultation not only with the president but with other interagencies that will have input on this with their views. >> again, mr. tillerson, given all the executive order says certain individuals responsible for cyber actions against the united states will be sanctioned, and you still need to it examine whether that is good idea or not, is that rect? >> yes, sir. >> oka let me ask you this question. is vladmir putin a war criminal? >> i would not use that term. >> well let me describe the
situation in aleppo and perhaps that will help you reach that conclusion. in aleppo, mr. putin has directed his military to conduct a devastating campaign. he targeted schools, markets not just assisted syrians in doing it, his military has targeted schools and markets and other civilian infrastructure. it resulted in the death of thousands of civilians. this is theç to the first time mr. putin is involved in campaigns of this kind. back when he was just appointed prime minister before he was elected and i'm sure you're aware of that period of time, there was a series of bombings and blamed it on the chechens. mr. putin person sy said he would punish them. he ordered air force to bomb the chechen capital. 137 people died instantly. they used bombs that ignite and burn air breathed in by people hiding in basements. they used cluster munitions. he used battlefield weapons
against civilians, when all said and done, estimated 300,000 civilians was killed and city was completely destroyed. there is credible body of reporting, open source and other that this was all those bombings were part of a black flag operation on the part of the fsb and, if you want to know the motivation, here is what it is. putin's approval ratings before the attacks against chechens was 31%. by mid-august of that year it was 78% in just three months. so based on all this information, and what is publicly in the record what happened in aleppo and russian military you are still not prepared to say that vladmir putin and his military have violated the rules of war and have conducted war crimes in aleppo? >> those are very, very serious charges to make and i would want to have much more information before reaching a conclusion. inderstand there is a body of record in the public domain. i'm sure there is abody of record in the classified domain. and i think in order to deal with a serious question like
this -- >> tillerson was happened in the public domain. >> i would need to be fully informed before advising president. >> i encourage you there is so much information out there what happened in the aleppo, leaving chechen issue aside. what happened there is clearly documented. there is so much information out there, it should not be hard to say vladmir putin's military conducted war crimes in aleppo. because it is never acceptable are would agree for a military to specifically target civilians which happened there you there the russian military. i find it discouraging your inability to cite that which i think is globally accepted. i want to in my last minute and 1/2 here move really quickly to an additional question. in fact i want to enter two things into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> the first is a partial list of political dissidents and journalists critics of vladmir putin who died under highly suspicious circumstances. second thing i want to enter into the record addressed to
this committee addressed by a manç mysteriously poison and opponent of putin regime. like to enter that that. >> without objection. >> mr. tillerson do you believe that vladmir putin and his cronies are responsible for order iring the murder countless dissidents, journalists and political opponents? >> i do not have sufficient information to make that claim. >> are you aware that people who oppose vladmir putin wind up dead all over the world, poisoned, shot in the back of the head and do you think that was coincidental or do you think it is quite possibly or likely as i believe they were part of an effort to murder his political opponents? >> well, people who speak up for freedom in regimes that are repressive are often at threat and in these things happen to them. in terms of assigning specific responsibilities, i would have to have more information because as i indicated i feel it is important that in advising the
president, if confirmed, that i deal with facts, that i deal with sufficient information, which means having access to all information, and i'm sure there is a large body of information that i have never seen that is in the classified realm. i look forward if confirmed to become, becoming fully informed but i am not willing to make conclusions on what is only publicly available or opinion publicly reportable. >> none of this is classified, mr. tillerson. the people are dead. >> your question was people directly responsible for that. i'm not is disputing these people are dead. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. tillerson. congratulations on your nomination. thank you for coming by to meet with me. and i'd like to take this opportunity to expand possible the conversation we had last week. since you worked in one sector for one company lieutenant through the your entire career, getting sense of your world view will be important and chief advocate and advisor to the
president-elect on those issues. so i'd like to go through a series of questions. i think many of them can be answered by simple yes or others will probably take a greater, more extensive answer, so, you alluded to some of this in your opening statement. let me go through several of them. do you believe it is in the national interests of the united states to continue to support international laws and norms that were e world war ii? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe that the international order includes respecting the territorial integrity of sovereign countries in the inviability of their borders? >> yes, sir. >> did russia violate this international order when it forcefully annexed crimea andç and --. .
>> does the bombing campaign in aleppo on hospitals violate the international order. >> yes, that's not acceptable. >> do you believe these actions constitute war crimes? >> i don't havsufficie information to make that type of serious conclusion. >> do you understand what the standard is for a war crime and knowing that standard and knowing what is within the whelm of public information, you cannot say whether those actions constitute a war crime. >> i would not want to rely
solely upon what has been reported in the public forum. >> if i could. >> if you will take your time. >> i'm not taking your time. if you had sufficient evidence in classified information that had taken place, would that not be a war crime. >> yes, sir. >> for all of these answers you have given me, does the president-elect agree with you? >> the president-elect and i have not had the opportunity to discuss this specific issue for this specific area. >> in your statement on page three you say in his campaign president-elect trump opposed a bold new commitment to advancing american interest in our foreign policy. i hope to explain what this approach means and how to implement that policy if confirmed at secretary of state. i assume to some degree you had
a discussion about what it is that world view will be to understand you will execute that on behalf of the pson you are going to work for. >> in a broad construct and the principles that will guide that, yes. >> i would have thought russia would be at the top of that considering all the actions that have take be place. that hasn't happened? >> that has not occurred yet. >> you built a career with yekson mobile -- with exxonmobil. you were awarded the global friendship award and you had interactions with vladimir putin during your tenure. in 2014, exxonmobil lobbied against sanctions after ukraine. you he employed well-known washington-based lobbyists who
support these efforts. you visited the white house and reported you were engaged at the highest levels of government. sanctions are one of the most effective diplomatic tools in our arsenal. one we rely on to avoid putting american lives at risk by engaging in kinetic warfare. today you said sanctions are a powerful tool. but you made statement and have given speeches where you said you do not believe sanctions are a useful tool. so if sanctions are not a useful tool, have you changed your view? what are the tools of peaceful diplomacy you will use to get countries to return and act within the international order? what are you going to say to vladimir putin when he says,
rex, you said sanctions are bad. >> when sanctions are imposed, they by design will harm the american business. that's the idea to disrupt america's business engagement in whatever country is -- >> i don't think it's to disrupt american businesses. it's to disrupt the economy in those countries. >> if america is going to have an influence in disrupting those economies. it will disrupt american investment, money flows. >> financial sectors. >> correct. i'm only stating a fact, i'm not debating it. sanctions in order to be implemented do impact american business interests. in protecting america's interests, and i think this is
where the president-elect would see the argument as well. sanctions are a powerful tool. let's design them well, target them well, and enforce them fully. to the extent we can. if we can have other countries join us or if we are designing sanctions in concert. let's insure the sanctions apply equally he where. >> when you made your remarks. you did not differentiate that way. you made the broad case that sanctions are not an effective tool. now, i heard your response now, but in your opening statement you said that quote america must continue to display commitment to personal liberty, human dignity, principled action in our foreign policy and we are the only global super power with the ability to shape the world for good. i totalldisagreeith that.
but leading the international community in sanctions against our adversaries represent leadership and a moral come pass. it's not about disadvantaging american businesses. it's about putting patriotism over prove it. difficult mopit -- diplomacy is not the same as deal make. there isn't necessarily something to trade for it. this is how we were able to build an extensive sanctions network against iran. we were able to build a framework of primary and secondary sanctions that ultimately crippled iran's economy. you lobbied against the divestment act. you were the head of exxonmobil and wanted to
eliminate secondary sanctions. in 2003, 2004 and 2005 you were even ganged to a subsidiary company in business with countries the united states listed as state sponsors of terrorism including iran, syria and the sudan. countries except for the maneuver of your subsidiary eggon mole could not have been dealing with. exxonmobil lobbies against sanctions. this group also lobbied against sanctions against. against iran. with that history, in the work you did in the spring of 2011 where you oversaw an texason mobile deal with the kurdish government iraq after the united states government expressly did not want to see that happen,
fearing a deal would undermine the u.s. policy of one iraq and lead the country closer to civil war. what message are you going to be able to send to american businesses who are intent on pursuing their own interest at the expense of u.s. policies and potential for the political stability in foreign countries. how are you going to recalibrate your priorities as secretary of state. your shareholders are the american people and their security and interests. >> there is a lot in that question around which i could respond. i have never lobbied against sanctions personally. i continue -- >> the company you directed did. >> to my knowledge exxon never directly lobbied against sanctions. not to my knowledge. in term of all the other actions that were mentioned there. they were all undertaken with a great deal of transparency and
openness and engagement and input to the process. that's the beauty of american process. others are invited to express their view and inform the process. but my pivot now if confirmed to be secretary of state will have one mission only, and that is to represent the interest of the american people. as i stated multiple times. sanctions are an important powerful tool, but designing poor sinces can have a worse effect than no sanctions at all if they provoke a weak response. to the extent american leadership can broaden participation in those sanctions, the iran sanctions were extraordinarily effective because others joined in. >> senator menendez played an
incredible role in our nation making sure sanctions were in place and has led us all the relative to iran. i will let the record say your time ran over to accommodate the interjection i made earlier. i think you called me during this time, that your concern with the sanctions that were in place relative to iran were not that they were put in place, but that the europeans had put them in a way that was different, and it caused adverse situation for you as a business relative to european business, is that correct? >> that's with respect for the sanctions with russia. that's correct. >> let me just -- on senator rubio's questions. i understand how a nominee would
wish to be careful how they answer, especially one that plans to do what they say. in the event with many of those where he was asking about war crimes, if you were able through your own independent knowledge and working with classified agencies within the government to determine that the types of activity that he so well articulated took place, you would agree that those in fact would be war crimes? >> yes, sir. >> senator johnson. >> welcome, mr. tillerson. i manage you have had a pretty good time already. i want to pick up a little bit on sanctions. i have had my own concerns about the effectiveness of sanctions. you are pretty well aware of events and the public opinions on russia. i'm concerned that some not well
designed sanctions can solidify vladimir putin's standing within russia. is that a legitimate concern on sanctions? >> yes, sir, i think it is. >> in your testimony you said that russia is not unpredictable. that's a way of saying russiis predictable. russia does not think like we do. can you further expand on those comments? >> in terms of their -- [that will ruin the climate and destroy the future for your children and grandchildren] please don't put exxon in charge of the state department. protect our children and grandchildren. >> i can easily add time myself. but if we stopped the clock when
these interferences take place, it would be appreciated. >> if you forgot question. explain your comments that russia is predictable basically and russia does not think like we do. >> well, in my experience of both dealing with russia and representatives of russian government and russian entities, and then as my -- the length of time i spent in russia as an observer. my experience with the russians are they are very calculating, they are strategic in their thinking and they develop a plan. >> the world's most vulnerable community are expendable. in our home state of texas people are resisting pipelines. whether or not you become secretary of state, people will
not stop. protect the vulnerable. senators be brave. reject this man. protect the vulnerable. found the russians to be very strategic in their thinking, very tactical and they have a clear plan they laid before them. when i make the statement they are not unpredictable, if one is able to step back and understand what their long-term motivation is, and you see that they are going to chart a course. then it's an understanding of how are they likely to carry that plan out, and where are all of the elements of that plan that are on the table.
and in my view the leadership of russia has a plan, and it's a geographic plan that is in front of them, and they are taking actions to implement that plan. they are judging responses and making the next step in the plan based on that response. in that regard they are not unpredictable. if russia does not receive an adequate response to an action, they will execute the next step of the plan. >> summarize that plan that you see that they have. >> russia more than anything wants to reestablish its role in the global world order. they have a view that following the breakup of the soviet union, they were mistreated in some respects in the transition period. they believe they deserve a rightful role in the global world order because they are a nuclear power. they are search as to how to establish that. for most of the past 20 plus years since the demise of the soviet union they were not in a
position to assert that. they have spent all niece years developing the capability to do that. i think that's now what we are witnessing is an assertion on their part to force a conversation about what is russia's role in the global world order. the steps being taken are to make that point, that russia is here, russia matters, and we are a force to be dealt with. and that is a fairly predictable course of action they are taking. the important conversation we have had with them is does russia want to now and forever be an adversary of the united states? do you want this to get worse? or does russia desire a different relationship? we are not likely to ever be friends. i think as others have note our value systems are starkly different. we do not hold the same values. but i also know the russian people because of having spent
so many years in russia. there is scope to define a different relationship that can bring down the temperature around the conflicts we have today. and i think as secretary gates alluded to, dialogue is critical so these things do not spin out of control. we need to move russia from being an adversary always to a partner in times. on other issues we'll be adversaries. at times china is friendly and at times chainat -- at times chn adversary. but with russia we need to define, what is that relationship going to be and we can then chart our own plan of action to respond to that. >> to the spectrum of america's
relations. you have friendly rivals, unfriendly adversaries, and you are put russia in the unfriendly adversary category. >> unfriendly to adversaries. i hope they do not move to enemy because that would imply even more direct conflict with each other. >> you don't hold out much hope we can move them into the friendly rival category? >> i tend to think of it in three categories. friends, there are partners, and there are adversaries. at times our friends are partners from time to time on specific actions. our adversaries from time to time can be partners. but on other issues we are just not going to agree, so we remain adversaries. an adversary at the ideological
level is one thing. the adversary at a conflict level is very different. >> i agree with former senator nunn when he said your business experience, and you are business experience and relationship with putin is an asset. i think that kind of perspective is sorely need. i don't think we have enough people from the private sector. economic strength is linked to national strength. your background -- tino i asked you, how many different countries have you traveled to? >> i have never counted them up. i have would say over 40, somewhere between 40-50. i never counted them. >> how many countries have you done deals with, where you dealt with top leadership? >> i have never counted those, but it's certainly?
between 10-20 where i was directly engaged in a significant way. >> let me ask you as somebody from the private sector being asked to serve your nation. understanding you will be going through a process like this, understanding all the disclosure. leaving a life behind that i'm sure you valued. what was your greatest reservation saying yes? >> when i went through all the analysis, all the reasons i had r saying no, which is ur question, were all selfish reasons. so i had no reason to say no. >> you obviously had responsibilities as the ceo of exxonmobil, your role is going to change. do you have any reservation and can you describe what your mindset is from making that transition? >> senator, i have no reservations about my clean
break with my private sector life. it was a wonderful 41 1/2 year career and i learned a lot. but now i'm moving to a completely different responsibility. my love of country and my patriotism is going to dictate that i serve no one's interests but that of the american people and advancing our own national security. >> as you traveled the world with a business mindset work at developing projects around the world, you are hearing from people around the world. former president carter in june 2015 was commenting on president obama's foreign policy. and he said he can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now that we did what he did when he took over, president obama. united states influence in the
world is probably lower than it was 7 years ago. is that your general sense as you traveled around the world during this administration that our influence and prestige and respect is lower and we have not developed better relationships around the world. >> i know i shared with others in meetings, i spent the last 10 years on an intended listening tour as i traveled around the world conducting affairs, enga the top leadership, heads of state. and i had the opportunity to listen to them express their frustrations, fears, concerns as to withdrawal and stepping back of america's leadership, the lack of that engagement. and they are yearning and they wanted american leadership asserted. when i met with the president-elect and he was ultimately asking me to do this.
i indicated to him, i said we have a tough hand of cards that you have been dealt. but there is no piewl -- there e of whining or complaining about it. because america still holds all the aces, and we just need to draw them out on that day. leaders around the world want our engagement. you will be pushing on an open door because they want america to come back. >> the number of times you used reality, clarity, moral leadership, snowstorm clarity, moral lights, facts, use logic. those are the words of a business person. that's why i think your perspective will be very welcome at the state department. >> thank you for being willing to consider the nomination which
has been put forward to be secretary of state. i agree with your opening statement that the united states has an important role to play in the world standing up for our interests and values, for democracy, press freedom, human rights and resume of law. you were urn willing to agree with senator riewb yoams characterization of vladimir putin as a war criminal. you point out in your statement that's russia has disregarded american interests. i would suggest as i think has been brought out in later testimony, it not only has disregarded american interests but international norms and human tearian interests. the state department described russia has having an authoritarian political system dominated vladimir putin. freedom house puts russia in categories with iran resumed by
dictatorships, religious hierarchies or autocrats. do you agree with tha that? >> i would have no reason to take exception. >> senator rubio and senator carden. the "new york times" story, more of the kremlin's opponents are ending up dead. i think a picture cities worth a thousand words. when you have put a face to sergei magnitsky and see two other victims of the authoritarian regime in russia. i think it speaks to what's happening there, and how we
should think about the country and dealing with president putin. i understand what senator nunn said -- former senator nunn and secretary gates said when they talked about the need to have dialogue with russia and continue to build a relationship. but i think it's also important for to us understand who we are dealing with. in 2008 you notably said there is no respect for the rule of law in russia today. do you think that continues to be true. >> that is still the case, yes. >> i think you can probably understand, mr. tillerson, why some of us are very concerned about the president-elect's statements praising vladimir putin's leadership and intelligence, after being remind of his ruthless persecution of political emies and after
receiving compelling information that russia interfered with our elections. do you have think now is the right time to lift sanctions against russia? >> i think it's important we keep the status quo until we are able to develop what our approach is going to be. that it will be all part of the approach. that is part of the incentives on the one hand. or part of the greater pressure on the other that will be an important element by developing the approach. if confirmed, that is
>> i'm almost out of time, but i want to go back to russia for a brief moment. because as you talk about the potential to work with them, one of those areas that we have been successful on is new start, the new start treaty back in 2010 which this committee support and the senate supported that even sures russians have to reduce their nuclear war head and delivery vehicles. it's given us more access to on-site inspections. do you believe continuing those efforts are important for us? >> this is an area where we have to stay engaged "russia. hold them accountable to
commitments made 367 and insure we are in a position to meet our accountabilities as well. >> thank you for your willingness to serve. it's a difficult thing to put you're family you as well as yourself. in our opening testimony you talked about the war on isis, that it will take a while, that's the implication i get from what you wrote. i think it's certainly true. in congress we rarely declare war these days, but we do authorize the use of military force. we have not passed one yet with regard to isis. we are still working under and i ill-fitting 2001aumf with regard
to al qaeda in afghanistan. senator mccain and i offered a bipartisan aumf to deal with isis. and we think that it certainly helps to have congressional buy-in, that our allies deserve to know where we are and our adversaries need to know. what are your thoughts with regard to an aumf regarding isis. >> i think the president-elect 4 in broad terms indicated that he believes that it is important we not just lightly go into these conflicts. that he would seek the engagement of congress and the support of congress in some means. whether the sense of the congress or legislation. so i would not disagree with our characterization that it is much
more powerful when the u.s. shows up with everyone aligned. having the support of having a congress standing behind the decisions to commit u.s. men and women and military resources does give us a much stronger position than to engage with allies in building those alliances that are important. in the case of defeating isis. that's one of the first actions that will be necessary, which is to reengage with our allies in the area and make sure we know what they are willing to commit as well. i would support engaging at the minimum with this committee and ultimately if legislative action i would be talking to the president about that. >> it would be welcomed here. what we don't want to see -- i don't want to speak for my colleagues -- what i would not want to see is what we saw after the promise of drawing the red line which you mentioned in your
testimony. when you draw a red line, you said we send weak or mixed signals with red lines that turn into green lights. what happened with the last administration, that red line was drawn, but rather than enforce that red line when with it was crossed. the administration came to conscious to ask permission. we always enjoy the administration coming to us. but when you draw a red line, enforce it. the war powers act allows 60 days. that's -- that kind of collaboration with congress is using us as a crutch rather than an ally in this battle. >> i take the point. >> with regard the to cuba. you mentioned their leaders under the new arrangement we with with diplomatic relations.
loosened travel restrictions. their leaders receive much while their people receive little. this serve neither the interests of cubans or americans. i encourage you to look at what has happened in cuba. i think the government is no less repressive with regard to dissidents. that's still going on. but when president obama allowed cuban americans to travel unfettered to cuba and lifted caps and remittances it allowed cubans who had previously worked for the government in cuba to engage in private activity and virtually no private sector employment in cuba, we have gone to 25% of the cuban workforce in the private sector. i submit they enjoy a measure of economic and political freedom that they didn't before. so i think that has benefited the cuban people and will
continue to if we continue the approach we have taken. and i do share your aversion to sanctions, particularly those that are not multi lateral. i think we have seen that in spades in cuba over the years, where it was only the u.s. who employed sanctions. and then sanctions that weren't comprehensive. and didn't mean that much other than giving the regime a convenient excuse for the failure of socialism. i would encourage in the next couple weeks to look at what's happened in cuba with regard to our new policy. with regard to africa, we had a good discussion. in my office. in exxonmobil you dealt with africa a lot. we have a lot of program, usaid, all over the continent. as you viewed those programs, in addition to what exxonmobil
has done, what works and what doesn't. how can we refashion some of our policies to nudge countries toward democracy that need nudge or tt ph countries or encourage cooperation with us on security measures or humanitarian measures. >> certainly the use of important usaid assistance falls in two broad areas. disaster relief, addressing imminent situations on the ground, there there is starvation as a result of storms or conflict. providing assistance to relief to immediate suffering. that's an important part of usaid. look at development assistance designed to create change which hopefully becomes a sustainable
change, regret bit disaster assistance part of that budget has grown and there is less available for development. other important ways in which we can provide assistance through other mechanisms such as millennial challenge corporation. for those countries that qualify, that's a different model. i think in terms of what's the issue we are trying to address, how do we put obligations on the country then to modify behaviors whether it's to take steps to reduce corruption and help governments to manage their affairs. where i have seen aood progress is when assistance was put into the country with some requirement that they modify or streamline their permitting process.
one of the ways to reef dues the complexion its, the more steps you have in a program, the more opportunity * for people to take something out of it. there have been requirements for government to simplify the citizen getting a driver's license or getting a permit to buy an automobile or piece of equipment. that in and off itself can come up. you can change the behaviors within these developing countries. where we can tie our assistance to obligations, it's important to do so and then able to follow up. again we have he country's issues need to be examined on a case-by-case basis and try to
target a design assistance to advance america's values and help that country continue it journallive along better governments. but in some cases if it's that disaster relief, that's hard to do. it's hard to start feeding starving people, and when the government is not following its obligations they will stop feeding starving people. those are difficult choices to make. >> we talked about different programs. can you tell us what you observed in africa in terms of goodwill. >> petfar has been one of the most excellent programs in africa. exxonmobil took on the challenge of eradicating malaria and worked with competent
ngos, some of which were receiving funding through petfar and other public-fly vat partnerships. eradicating malaria, that's where progress has been made. but petfr has brought so much goodwill from africa, recognition of the goodwill and the compassionate nature of the american people. it's probably one of the best projections of american goodwill and compassion into the continent. broadly recognized by leaders and broadly recognized by nose it touches. >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and you, the ranking member work so carefully with us for getting this organized in such a good fashion. mr. tillerson, let me first all thank you very much for your visit to my office, and us being
able to exchange ideas and discuss where you want -- how you want to approach things as the incoming secretary of state if you are approved. and i want to thank so much your family for being here. it's always wonderful to see family, brenda and brothers and sisters. so that's a good -- a very good start, i believe. exxon has done and continues to do business in various countries in the world that are problematic to the u.s. you mentioned that a little bit here. in some cases some of those countries are outright hostile. we know exxon did business in iran, and iran's regime has supported terrorist attacks against americans. exxon has a massive oil interest in russia which has recently acted to undermine our elections.
exxon has a history of major political contributions and a large washington lobbyist presence. would you permit exian to lobby the state -- would you permit exxon to lobby your state department under your leadership. >> any issues involving exxonmobil that might come before me as secretary of state, i would recuse myself from those issues. >> would you take phone calls from the new ceo about foreign matters or interests they had around the world that are within the jurisdiction of the ste department. >> i would not extend to the new chairman ceo of exxonmobil any courtesies beyond which i would extend to anyone. >> are you saying you would take calls and visit with the ceo? i'm trying to understand -- what kind of limit you are going to put on yourself in terms of
dealing with your company and employees. i know you made a clean break in terms of the ethics agreements and things like that. but give us an understanding of the policy that you are going to follow if you are approved, as to how you are going to deal with these situations. there are many countries in the world where to give an example, australia, new guinea, australia, qatar, russia, and the united kingdom. exxon is asking for tax dollars back from those. if you are carrying out foreign policy in those countries, how will you deal with that situation in terms of contact with exxon, with your former colleagues, that kind of situation. >> let me start with where you began in terms of taking phone calls. i would not expect that i will be taking phone calls from any business leaders.
in my prior role i never called on the secretary of state directly. i called on the department often or the missions. primary the ambassadors. so i -- whether i'll take phone calls from anyone is a subject to the question itself. as to how i would deal with the past history i have in m prior position with exxonmobil, i made clear in m disclosures and i think in answer to questions that have been posed in is a statutory recusal period i will adhere to on any matters that might come before the state department that deal directly and specifically with exon mobile. beyond that, though, in terms of broader issues dealing with the fact it might involve the out and natural gas industry itself, the scone of that is such i would not expect and have to recuse myself. in any instance where there is
any question or even the appearance, i would expect to seek the guidance of counsel on ethics in the state department and follow their guidance on whether it's an issue i should recuse myself from. you have much by that answer. i was heartened by some of the exchange we had in my office with regard to climate change. as you know, climate change has been expressed as a serious national security concern. sea levels rising, threatened navy bases. we have crop disruptions and water shortages all over the world. in my state of new mexico and other natural disasters i think will threaten the stability of many developing countries. during the transition some departments have been asked to name individuals involved in climate policy who attended
international climate meetings which made many federal employees concerned about a witch hunt against employees involved in climate policy. would you support efforts to sideline or retaliate against career state department employees who have worked on climate change in the past. >> no, sir, that would be a pretty unhelpful way to get started. >> i like that answer. while you were ceo of exxon, the company website stated the risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrant action. increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. this a scientific consensus action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risk. i understand if confirmed you will be serving under president-elect trump. but do you personally stand by
this statement today, yes or no. >> i do not take exception to that statement. i might articulate it a little differently as to my personal views. the president-elect invited my views on climate exchange. he knows i'm on the public record withy views. and i look forward to providing those if confirmed to him in discussions around how the u.s. should conduct its policies in this area. ultimately the president-elect, he was elected, and i'll carry out hits policies to be as successful as possible. it's important to note that he has asked, and i feel free to express those views. >> during our meting you expressed support for a scar won tax as one -- for a carbon tax as one way to address climate change. will you continue to work with congress to make this a priority
in the state department if you are confirmed? >> when it gets to tax policy that will be the spofnt other agencies to conduct. my role at state would be only to deal with those issues that are relevant to treaties or international accords we entered into in terms of our continued compliance with those, participation in those, and that's the area i would be most engaged in. >> my understanding in the discussion with you in my office, i think you said you were going to talk about this publicly if you were asked questions, you came to the carbon tax conclusion doing a very thorough analysis of everything that was out there. whatever was trying to bring down carbon emissions you looked at everything and you concluded the best recommendation was to move forward with a carbon tax.
is that correct? >> the analysis that i went through which was largey informed by a number of studies, economic studies and economic institutions and others was during time the congress was debating the cap and trade approach which in my view had not produced the result everyone wanted in europe. we had a working model in europe that we had been watching and exxonmobil had been participating in that model. the debate around cap and trade as being the option versus something else is what stimulated the question for me, if this spent working, what might. that began the investigation of other alternatives. one of the important elements of even considering something like that as a solution, though, or two other aspects, it replaces the hodgepodge of approaches
today which we have today that are scattered, blue mandates, some of which are well-intended but ineffective incentives. so let's simplify the system. this is the one and only effort we are going to take to influence people's choices. and the second qualifier i always placed on it is revenues from -- if a carbon tax were put in place, it has to be revenue neutral. all the revenues go back into the economy through reduced payroll taxes, because there will be impacts on jobs. let's mitigate that by reducing the impact by putting it bac into the economy. none ofhe money is held in the federal treasury for other purposes. this is a mechanism to incentive incentivize people. >> if i could, senator udall did
an excellent job of teasing this out. would you have state your personal position as it relates to climate change? >> i came to my personal position over about 20 years as an engineer and scientist, understanding the evolution of the science. came to the conclusion a few years ago the risk of climate change does exist. and the consequence of it could be serious enough that actions should be taken. the type of action is -- seems to be where the largest areas of debate exist in the public discourse. i think it's important to recognize the u.s. has done a pretty good job. >> this is not as succinct as i was hoping. it's my hope -- >> i think we should let him finish. >> do you believe human activity based on your beleaf in science is contributing to climate change? >> the increase in the green
house gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect. our ability to predict that effect is very limited. >> senator garner. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you, mr. tillerson for your hopeful service to the country and to your family, and thank you to your commitment. if confirmed this is a sacrifice as well. in your opening statement you talk about what i believe is the idea of america, liberty, prosperity, security that we live in a nation found on liberty, maintaining liberty through security. and growing the prosperity of the american people. whether it's the industrial revolution or civil war. the time period after world war i and ii. it was a generational if not
more definition of changing lives, impacting our children and the moment we are in today changes what we have seen around the globe, changes technology, changes and instability will greatly impact the lives of our children and grandchildren. i think u.s. engagement matters greatly. you would agree with that assessment, correct? >> yes, sir, i would. >> this is not a time for the u.s. to shrink from the world or that engagement. >> that's correct. as i indicated in my opening remarks, that's what's been missing, u.s. leadership. >> as western values continue, those norms that made this country great, liberty and prosperity. >> we are the only country able to project that with authority. >> one of the things i find indicating about this ask
country is the ability to lead around the world with diplomacy and not just with defense. would you agree with that? >> yes sir. >> we'll use force when necessary and should not back away from the obligation to use force where necessary. >> everyone understands that's the least attractive option. >> we must leave no doubt in the minds of our alliances the willingness and commitment of the united states to use diplomacy and force where necessary to achieve the goals of that alliance. >> diplomacy will be ineffective if it's not backed up by the threat of force. >> north korea developed a series of nuclear capability that pose a threat to the united states and to the region. senator menendez and i did lead the north korea sanctions and
policy enhancement act which passed the senate, signed into law by the president, unanimous vote, and it abandoned this administration's failed policy of strategic patience. it mandated sanctions on pyongyang's malicious cyber efforts. do you intend to fulfill all mandatory sanction requirements of this sanctions act? >> yes, i would. that is the issue in north korea. we failed to enforce existing sanctions. >> your plan obviously as it relates to north korea, our actions toward north korea depend on south korea, japan, how we bolster the relationship between the youth, south korea, and japan?
require a new approach with china. our expectations of them. see mick if you look at the korean a collet -- economy relies on china in china has not enforced the sanctions allowing them to continue proliferation activities. through activities that would have been served sanctions. if found in confirmed to have violated the un resolutions that they have entered into. 90% of the trade is with china. they are slowly -- solely dependent on trade. specifically mentioned. if there are gaps of enforcement that had to be enforced. they are not going to comply
with those sanctions then it is appropriate for the united states to consider actions to compel them to comply. >> how do you intend to lead the u.s. and multilateral efforts. it will be a lg term plan designing the sanctions to close gaps that exist. there are gaps in those sanctions today. that are undermining their effectiveness. it is a question of closing those gaps where it is appropriate to seek further steps against those who are not fully compliant with the sanctions and revisiting other areas where we can close off access by north korea for resources that will allow them to continue. looking at all of that as to
what is still there and how can we put additional pressure on it to deny them the capability to continue not just the development but the delivery system which is where the greatest threat exist today. >> it shared the sub committee. part of the effort we held a number of hearings that were exclusively devoted to international cyber security mandated that they produce a long overdue policy on outgoing policy. the bill that we passed also includes mandatory cyber sanctions for the first time. the idea of creating a permanent view on cyber security and how to address the concerns and the needs
from the standpoint to national security needs. how will you prioritize cyber security at the state department. >> it confirmed as indicated the imminent threat today is isis. but probably the greatest and most complex threat we are facing today is in the area of cyber security. it has significant capabilities but we are extremely vulnerable partly because we have not maintained our own it infrastructure we have not built defensive mechanisms to protect and not just government sites but important infrastructure and in some cases important private sector. it is important that we had put in place once and for all a comprehensive strategy for dealing with cyber security and cyber threats that includes what our appropriate
norms for behavior and appropriate use of cyber information in what is and what would be an acceptable response when nations violate those norms. the u.s. has a lead in this area. no one is doing it. it's going to require a lot of interagency aeement how do we construct us thoughtful approach to cyber security and what are going to be the norms and then i think we engage with our friends and allies first. we establish what those norms are going to be and build out the international support for those so that when these attacks happen we are not struggling with what is an appropriate response and how far should we go. this will be the accepted norms. it is a comp located issue it
has a lot of aspects to it that had to be carefully considered but we cannot delay beginning to develop this conference approach. >> do you believe it should be elevated within the state department perhaps? >> i think it could be part of the outcome. what is the right way for the u.s. to manage of the threat and be prepared to respond when others take action. >> you have shown extreme stamina for a 64-year-old male and we will have a five minute recess if you wish to exit the room i suggest you come this way. we will resume in five minutes with senator kane. >> rex tillerson taking a break there. he has been on that stand for
two and half hours. look at what has happened to the market. we've have an extraordinary move over the course of the past half an hour we were up 115 points we are now up one point. what happened. donald trump held a news conference and at that news conference he basically said he's going to go after pharmaceutical companies and he will get more value for the buck down went the cynical companies. lucky martin turned south. and took the whole market with it. it is now down three points. president-elt trump has also gone on with the young lady addressing the press conference and we are going to divest all of mister trump's. >> all of his businesses to a
trust he will well linguist control of the trump organization as we know it to donald junior, eric trump and ethics advisor it would would be appointed to join the management team trump will resign all offices and positions within his companies also i've uncut trump will relinquish all management authority. they will donate all profits and foreign stays at the hotel's to the u.s. treasury. but to your point about the healthcare stock look at the pfizer. they're all a down. all and the negative. three major indices turn negative just a few moments ago. we were monitoring the
president elect press conference and he has a very different tone for what we were expecting. i thought he would come out with guns blazing especially after these reports about what information the russians had had and how that was leaked to details to the media and broadcast widely over night and again this morning. he did not come out and blast that but he did take a softer tone. i will go back to the news conference now a young lady is explaining how mr. trump will get away from any conflicts of interest problems. >> he has been linguist leadership of the trump organization to s sons don and eric in a long time trump executive. together these three well have the authority to manage the organization and will make decisions for the duration of the presidency without any involvement whatsoever by president-elect trump. further after the direction
the agreement provides to ensure that the trump organization continue to operate in accordance with the ethical standards and advisor will be appointed to the management team. the written approval of the ethics advisor will be required for new deals that could raise conflict of interest concerns. president-elect trump as well as don, eric and alan are committed to ensuring that the trump organization are beyond reproach and cannot be perceived to be exploited as the office of the presidency. they will resign from all officer and other position he holds with the trump organization entity. further in addition his daughter well had no further involvement with or management authority whatsoever with the trump organization. as she and jared moved their family to dc she will be
focused on settling her children into their new homes in new the schools. the president-elect has also already dispose of all of his investments in publicly traded as a result the trump trust well had two types of assets. it will hold liquid assets cash, cash equivalents in treasuries and perhaps some positions in the government approved portfolio. second, e trust is going to hold the pre-existing illiquid but very valuable business assets the one that everyone here is familiar with. he owned, operated in branded several resorts commercial properties of the marked productions of goods. things like trump tower merrill largo all of the other business assets will all be in the trust. through instructions
president-elect trump first ordered that all pending deals be terminated. this was more than 30 deals many of which were set to close by the end of 2016. as you can will imagine that cause immediate financial loss of millions of dollars not just for president-elect trump but also for the children. the trust agreement as directed by president trump imposes severe restrictions on new deals. no one new foreign deals will be made whatsoever during the duration of president trump's presidency. new domestic deals will be allowed but they will go through a vigorous vetting process the president-elect well had no role in deciding whether the trump organization engages in any new deal and he will only know of a deal if he reads it in the paper receives it on tv. because any new deal could and i emphasize could, the perceived as causing a
conflict or exploiting the office of the presidency. they must be bedded with the ethics advisor. whose role would be to analyze any potential transactions for conflicts. again the new deals in the actions and any new deal must receive written approval. to further reinforce the wall that we are building between president-elect trump in the trump organization president elected trump has ordered through his agreement to sharply limit his information rights reports well only be available and reflect profit and loss on the company as a whole there will be no separate business by business accounting. another step that he is taken as he created a new position at the trump organization the position of chief compliance counsel.
the responsibility will be to ensure that the trump businesses again are operating at the highest levels of integrity and not taking any action that could be perceived as exploiting the office of the presidency. his directed that no communications including social media accounts will reference or be tied to president-elect trump's role of the united states president. all of these actions complete relinquish a management note foreign deals ethics advor approval of deals sharply limited information rights will sever president-elect trump's presidency from the trump organization. some have asked questions why not divest, why not just sell everything. i would like to turn to addressing some of those questions now. selling first and foremost would not eliminate possibilities of interest. in fact the trump brand is key
to the value of the trump organization and its assets. if he sold his brand he would be entitled to royalties for the use of it and this would result in the trust retaining an interest in the brand without the ability to assure. >> we will not go back to rex tillerson. >> it was more to go to the details of what the sanctions would do to make sure they are pride appropriately across the board is that correct? >> i never lobbied against the sanction. to my knowledge exxon mobil never lobbied against the sanctions. they participated in understanding how the sanctions were going to be constructed and was asked and provided information providing how this might impact american business interest. in the only engagement i have really came after the sanctions were in place and
exxon mobil in t middle of drilling a well in a very mote part several hundred miles away from any safe harbor when the sanctions went into place because of the way they were written they took immediate effect. there was no grace. i engaged immediately with the state department and treasury to explain to them that there was a significant risk to people and the environment and we were we were going to comply with the sanctions fully comply it was going to put lives at risk in the environment at risk because this was a wildcat exploration while at the time. provided again the technical information in the state department they were thankful it took about five days for them to understand that and
they stood still while they were evaluating that and in the end did grant a temporary license to allow network to be completed safely so that we could get all of the people out of the country and get all of the equipment out. that was my direct engagement in dealing with the effect of the sanctions the characterization that they lobbieagainst is not accurate. >> thank you for your willingness to serve. congratulation on your nomination. how much information do you head about financial connections between president-elect trump the trump family or organizations and russian individuals or organizations or the russian government. >> if i ask you the same question and substituted another country for russia in that question would you answer
the same? >> you have no way of knowing how actions proposed by trump regarding those countries or others would expect his personal or family financial interest. >> i have no knowledge. how are they supposed to fully judge the actions proposed by a president trump if we elect basic information about how they may benefit his personal finances. that is a question that others well had to address. they had used their positions of leadership to greatly advance their personal wealth while they were in office. >> i have no direct knowledge of that. but you've read press accounts suggesting that they have personal wealth while in office. >> i am aware of the press reports.
>> do you think such behavior is in accordance with the u.s. values. >> if the reports are true and there has been inappropriate taking of funds that belong to the government and is not provided for under the government's laws that would be contrary to our values which are to respect the laws. >> should they be diligent to make sure federal officials do not use their public position to amass personal wealth while in office. >> is a standard in the united states. without full disclosure of the president and all the interest isn't there a chance that you might be across the table in a negotiation setting who know more about the president financial interest than you do? >> not to my knowledge. wouldn't that put america at
some of the disadvantage? >> if it's not my knowledge is back second to change the way i am negotiated with tm. if someone on the other side has more knowledge than you do is that not something that could put you at a disadvantage? >> i think as long as the objective is clear what are we trying to achieve? that is all that matters. if you achieve the objective the art of negotiating is just how you achieve that objective. >> i want to ask you some questions about climate. he talked about this in my office. there has been a great deal of coverage with the use of climate change. there was a recent two-part article prepared by members of the rockefeller family organization in 2015 there was a three-part series in the los angeles times and in the senior inside climate news didn't a month investigation
produced a nine part series that was a finalist for a pulitzer prize all on the question of the knowledge of basic climate science. these include the following and i will ask you some questions. one, exxon mobil concluded as early as the 1970s that pollution from co2 released by the burning of fossil fuel was affecting the climate and destructive way. to despite the knowledge they took public positions against the scientific consensus regarding climate science. three, they funded outside organizations that publicly denied, downplayed and obscured the consensus. for, despite claims to the contrary continues to provide funding if at a lower level to outside groups that deny downplay or obscure the scientific consensus. our these conclusions about the history of promoting and funding climate science denial
despite its internal awareness of the reality during the tenure with the company true or false? >> i'm no longer with exxon mobil i'm in no no space position to speak on their behalf. >> i'm asking you to speak on their behalf. your with the company for nearly 42 years. >> correct. >> for the moral majority of the time you're in management position. >> approximately half the time. >> he became ceo in 2006. i'm asking you whether the allegations in the knowledge of climate science indecision to fund and promote a view contrary to its awareness of the science whether those allegations are true or false. >> it would have to be put to exxon mobil. do you lack the knowledge or are you refusing to answer the
question. >> a little of both. i have a hard time the hard time believing that you lack that knowledge. we talked in my office you have severed your financial ties with exxon mobil is that correct. >> that is correct. subject to any competency quality agreement about the matter i'm asking about. >> let me clarify my first answer. all of the ties will be severed if i am confirmed. to my knowledge i have no such competent elegy analogy agreement but had to consult counsel. >> i will file that question for the record i be curious if there's any agreement and when it was entered into.
i want to enter a couple of documents into the record. first the letter dated 1992 from the theoretical and mathematical science and director of director of exxon research company. i will just quote for a minute september 1982, over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the effect of increased atmosphere of co2. a doubling of that from its pre- industrial revolution would result in an average global temperature rise between 1.5 and 3.0 degrees centigrade. attempt your increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth's climate including rainfall distribution and radiation. the time required depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels in summary the
result of our research are in a court with the consensus on the effect of atmosphere. we are now ready to present our research to the scientific community through the usual mechanisms. as we discussed in the august 24 meeting there is a potential for the popular news media because of the connection between the major business and the role of fossil fuel in contributing to the increase. our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific leadership would be a breach of the public position on honesty and integrity. i would like to introduce that letter for the record. this is a series produced in 2000 and i will read the following. >> geological evidence indicates the gas levels were
significant variability for nothing to do with human activity. against the backdrop it is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature to human causes and i would like to introduce that as well. >> without objection. >> one last subject i know you are familiar with the phrase resource curse. they often find their abundance actually impede development of the diverse economy and promotes authoritarianism that is not an iron law but there that has been a much discussed topic since the early 1990s. they do business in many countries that have suffered through this phenomenon.
i would like to talk about a secretary of state where we have a development portfolio that tries to help nations raise sustainable economies how would you work with the nations that have suffered under this resource curse and how will you work with them to make sure that they affect the human rights. >> there is a lot of opportunity through our usa programs. >> we are focusing on some very big develop mints welcome everybody. and you are watching coast to coast. we are monitoring to developments that are having market moving impacts. he is the pick to be the next secretary of state he has got some bristling comments even from republicans.